NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTEUNIVERSITY

BHOPAL

SEMESTER-V
SUBJECT- INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW

PROJECT ON CASE ANALYSIS OF

“CENTROTRADE MINERALS AND METALS INC. VS. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD.

2020 SCC OnLine SC 479”

SUBMITTED TO: - SUBMITTED BY: -

Dr. MONIKA RAJE UJJWAL JOSHI

(ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR) ( (2019 B.A. LL.B. 70)
 TABLE OFCONTENT
PREFACE.......................................................3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..............................4
CERTIFICATE...............................................0
INTRODUCTION..........................................1
NAME OF THE CASE...............................1
CITATION..................................................1
JUDGMENT DATE...................................1
BRIEF BACKGROUND............................1
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM.......................2
HYPOTHESIS...........................................................................................................................2
RESEARCH QUESTION..........................................................................................................2
OBJECTIVE OF STUDY..........................................................................................................2
JUDGES AND ADVOCATES..................................................................................................3
BENCH..................................................................................................................................3
JUDGES.................................................................................................................................3
ADVOCATES APPEARED..................................................................................................3
AMICUS CURIE...................................................................................................................3
MATERIAL FACTS..................................................................................................................4
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT...............................................................................5
ARGUMENTS...........................................................................................................................6
ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER..................................................................................6
ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT........................................................................................6
PROVISIONS AND DOCTRINES...........................................................................................8
CASES RELIED......................................................................................................................11
Domestic Cases....................................................................................................................11
Foreign Cases.......................................................................................................................12
JUDGEMENT IN PERSONAM..............................................................................................15
JUDGEMENT IN REM...........................................................................................................16
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION....................................................................................17
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................19
Statutes and Conventions.....................................................................................................19
 Cases....................................................................................................................................19
Books....................................................................................................................................19
REVIEW OF LITERATURE..................................................................................................20
 PREFACE

I feel great pleasure in presenting the project under study. I hope that the readers will find the
project interesting and that the project in its present from shall be well received by all. The
project contains a detailed study of “Case Analysis of CENTROTRADE MINERALS
AND METALS INC. VS. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 479]”

Every effort is made to keep the project error free. I would gratefully acknowledge any
suggestions to improve the project to make it more useful.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“The project has been made possible by the unconditional support of many people. I would
like to acknowledge and extend our heartfelt gratitude to Dr. MONIKA RAJE for guiding us
throughout the development of this paper into a coherent whole by providing helpful insights
and sharing his brilliant expertise. I would also like to thank the officials of the Gyan Mandir,
NLIU for helping me to find the appropriate research material for this study via the online
library it has provided even in the desperate pandemic times.”

I am deeply indebted to my parents, seniors and friends for all the moral support and
encouragement.
UJJWAL JOSHI
2019BALLB70
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Project titled – has been prepared and submitted by UJJWAL JOSHI
who is currently pursuing his B.A. LL.B (Hons.) at National Law Institute University Bhopal in
fulfillment of INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW course. It is also certified that this is original
research report and this project has not been submitted to any other university, nor published in
any journal.

Date

Signature of the student

Signature of the research supervisor

 INTRODUCTION

NAME OF THE CASE

CENTROTRADE MINERALS AND METALS INC. VS. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD.
CITATION
2020 SCC OnLine SC 479
JUDGMENT DATE
02.06.2020
BRIEF BACKGROUND
 In the present case the same parties have approached the Supreme Court seeking a remedy in

the same matter for the third instance.

 The dispute arose between an U.S. and an Indian Corporation who entered into a contract for
supply of copper. The dispute was to be settled under a two-tier arbitration clause, one to be
held in India and other in London.
 After the two-tier arbitration the award was given in favour of the Appellant, against which
the Respondent approached the Calcutta High Court under section 48 of the Act of 1996.
High Court dismissed the petition rendering the award enforceable in India. Respondent went
to appeal the decision before a 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court. To further complicate
the matters, both the respected judges of the Supreme Court delivered two different
judgement, each in different direction, i.e. one holding the foreign award valid and other
holding it unenforceable.
 In the light of discordant view taken by the division bench of the Supreme Court, the matter
was put up before a full bench. They were tasked with the duty to decide on the first issue in
the case that was relating to validity of two-tier arbitration agreement in the light contract
laws in India. This question was answered by the Full bench in affirmative.
 Finally, the case came to be heard by another full bench of the Supreme Court which was to
decide on the enforceability of a foreign award delivered in the second stage of two-tier
arbitration.
 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The dispute resolution between the parties engaged in a business is the most important clause.
The laws dealing with the dispute must be concurrent with each other. If such things are
inconsistent then the parties might make use of the laws as per to their need, and there might be a
gross violation of the principal of natural justice.

HYPOTHESIS

The foreign arbitrator I should be seen as an impartial party, and the interference of the courts on
its decision must be minimal and sporadic.

RESEARCH QUESTION

 Whether a two-tier arbitration system, as provided for in Clause 14 of the parties' contract, is
permitted under Indian law for resolving disputes or differences?
 Whether the result rendered in the appeal arbitration, a "foreign award," is subject to
enforcement at Centrotrade's request under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996?

OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

 To understand the conditions and grounds for an arbitral award to be enforceable in India
 To understand the important aspect of the different dispute resolution system and its
consistency with that of the Indian system
 JUDGES AND ADVOCATES

BENCH
FULL BENCH
JUDGES
Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman (delivered the judgement)
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Justice V. Ramasubramanian
ADVOCATES APPEARED
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Sarkar, Senior Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Debabrata Ray Choudhury, Senior Counsel
AMICUS CURIE
N/A
 MATERIAL FACTS

 The Appellant, (Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc.) an U.S. corporation entered into a
contract of sale of copper concentrate with the Respondent, Hindustan Copper Ltd. (HCL).
 Contract contained a two-tier arbitration clause according to which, in first tier the matter
was to be settled in India and in case any party was not satisfied, they would have the right to
appeal to second tier arbitration that would be held by ICC in London.
 Dispute arose between the parties relating to the weight of delivered copper and Appellants
invoked the arbitration clause.
 In first tier arbitration conducted in India, the arbitrator declared a nil award. Appellant
invoked the second tier of arbitration, in which the arbitrator appointed by ICC gave an
award in favour of the Appellant.
 Single Judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition filed by the
Respondent under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), thereby
making the award executable in India.
 Division Bench of the same court while allowing an appeal to the Respondent, set aside the
judgement passed by the single judge as the Indian award and the London Award, being
arbitration awards by arbitrators who had concurrent jurisdiction, were mutually destructive
of each other, neither could be enforced.
 Matter came before a division bench of the Supreme Court, that delivered two separate
judgements. This has brought the matter before a 3-judge bench of the same court.
 ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT

The first issue is a pure question of law, and the second issue is a mixed question of law and fact.
 Whether a two-tier arbitration system, as provided for in Clause 14 of the parties' contract, is
permitted under Indian law for resolving disputes or differences?
 Whether the result rendered in the appeal arbitration, a "foreign award," is subject to
enforcement at Centrotrade's request under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996?
 ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER

 Contended that ample opportunity had been given by the arbitrator to HCL to present its

case, but that HCL, having an Indian award in its pocket, wanted somehow to abort the
London arbitration proceedings.
 Submitted that in two-tier arbitration, the second arbitration proceedings having taken place
in London, the award of Mr. Cooke was a foreign award within the meaning of Section 44 of
the Act.
 The learned Single Judge was satisfied that the HCL was not unable to submit his case in the
arbitration procedures within the terms of Section 48(1)(b) of the Act, and no case has been
made out for setting aside the award, according to the submission. Even if an Arbitrator
refuses to adjourn, this is not a basis for contesting an arbitral ruling.

ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
 Submitted that the definition of an award as contained in Section 2(2) of the Act must be read

with the other provisions thereof, viz., Sections 2(5), 2(6) and 2(7) as also Section 42 thereof
in view of the fact that the Indian law was applicable in relation to the contract in question.
 Submitted that Indian law in relation to enforcement of the terms and conditions of the
contract being applicable, both the awards are governed by the Indian law.
 Contended that the second part of the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 14 of the
agreement is void and of no effect being opposed to public policy. Having regard to the fact
that the first award was made in terms of the Indian law, reference to the second arbitrator
was impermissible inasmuch as the Act envisages only one award.
 Submitted that the object of the Act being to provide an integral framework and the parties
having chosen Indian law, even assuming that Part II of the Act applies, Section 44 clearly
makes an exception therefore in view of the decision of this Court in Bhatia International v.
Bulk Trading S.A. and Anr.1
1
Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. and Anr. [2002]2SCR411
 In any case, the Arbitrator did not provide appropriate chances for hearing, and the award is
liable to be set aside since the processes provided by the ICC Rules were not followed. The
Arbitrator committed procedural misconduct by proceeding to prepare an award without
reviewing the parties' pleadings and only considering the first portion of the written statement
without waiting for the second part. HCL may have cross-examined the expert whose report
the award was based if they had been given the chance.
 Contended that neither any issue was raised, nor any date was fixed for hearing and, as the
parties were not given an opportunity to examine the witnesses, the award is liable to be set
aside in terms of Section 48(1)(b) of the 1996 Act.
 Contended that the judgment of the High Court to the extent that the arbitration clause has
been held to be valid is erroneous.
 PROVISIONS AND DOCTRINES

Following Statutory provisions and government notifications were relied upon by the parties in
the present case:
1. Section 48 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- This provision lays down the
conditions that needs to be fulfilled by the foreign award holder in order to render his award
enforceable in India. Failing to satisfy any of these conditions would render the foreign award
inexecutable in the territory of India.
In the present case the Respondent has filed a petition under section 48 challenging the award
issued by the arbitrator in London. It was stated that the said award is not enforceable in India
on the grounds that it violates public policy as it was delivered against the basic notions of
justice. It was contented that the Respondent did not receive the required opportunity to
present his case which is a fundamental right guaranteed to the parties to a proceeding.
2. Section 50 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- This provision of the act entitles
that parties to a foreign arbitration totake the matter to appeal if they are not satisfied with the
award passed by the institution situated on foreign land.
In the present case, contract between the parties contained a two-tier arbitration clause
wherein the first stage was to be held in India and the second stage in London in front of a
foreign arbitrator. On an appeal under Section 50, against the foreign award, it was held by
the court the second-tier arbitral award given by the arbitrator in London cannot be considered
as a foreign award and thus no appeal lies under section 50 of the Act.
3. Section 37 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- This provision lays down the
grounds on which an appeal can be filed against a domestic award or for the purpose of
setting aside of an arbitral award.
This provision came to be mentioned in the present case as the court tried to draw a line
difference between the appealable orders under section 37 and section 48 of the Act. Court
while comparing the two provisions held that unlike appeals under section 37, legislative
policy so far as recognition and enforcement of foreign awards is that an appeal is provided
 against a judgment refusing to recognise and enforce a foreign award but not the other way
around (i.e. an order recognising and enforcing an award). This idea was explained by the
court by contending that only one opportunity should be given to a party who has challenged
a foreign award under section 48 and failed, as India is a signatory to the Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958(hereinafter referred to as
"New York Convention") and thus the notion is to ensure enforcement of an award given in
another country to be enforced in India as soon as possible.
4. Section 103(2)(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996- This provision is a part of Part III of the
Arbitration Act of England dealing with recognition and enforcement of foreign awards.
England being a signatory to the New York convention has drafted this act in accordance to
the provisions of the convention.
Under section 103(2)(c), enforcement of a foreign award can be denied on the ground if the
party was not given an opportunity to present its case. In the present case, court while
deciding on the enforceability of the foreign award attempted to draw a parallel between
section 47 of the Indian arbitration act and section 103 of England’s arbitration act.
Arbitration Act of England states that inability to present a case to arbitrators within Section
103(2)(c) contemplates at least that the enforcee has been prevented from presenting his case
by matters outside his control. This will normally cover the case where the procedure adopted
has been operated in a manner contrary to the Rules of natural justice. Where, however, the
enforcee has, due to matters within his control, not provided himself with the means of taking
advantage of an opportunity given to him to present his case, he does not in my judgment,
bring himself within that exception to enforcement under the convention.

5. Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention- Article V belongs to the chapter of New York
Convention dealing with recognition and arbitrability of foreign awards. Clause 1 of article V
lays down the condition based on which enforceability of a foreign award can be barred.
In the present case sub clause b of the said provision became important. Court while dealing
with the submission presented by the Respondent challenging the foreign awards on the
ground of violation of public policy, went into the very origin of right of every party to
present its case. In doing so, the court went onto draw a parallel between the Indian law and
the New York Convention. Under sub clause b, the drafter of the convention has included that
if the party to the arbitration is not able to present his case then award arising out of such
arbitration would not be enforceable under the convention.
 CASES RELIED

Domestic Cases
1. Vijay Karia v. PrsymianCavi E Sistemi SRL2

This judgment was delivered by a full bench of the Supreme Court of India. Court in this
case while dealing with the law on the subject matter of Section 48(1)(b) of the Act, set out
the parameters of a Section 48. In this regard the court stated that thelegislative policy so far
as recognition and enforcement of foreign awards is that an appeal is provided against a
judgment refusing to recognise and enforce a foreign award but not the other way around
(i.e. an order recognising and enforcing an award).
This is because the policy of the legislature is that there ought to be only one bite at the
cherry in a case where objections are made to the foreign award on the extremely narrow
grounds contained in Section 48 of the Act and which have been rejected. This is in
consonance with the fact that India is a signatory to the New York Convention and intends
through this legislation to ensure that a person who belongs to a Convention country, and
who, in most cases, has gone through a challenge procedure to the said award in the country
of its origin, must then be able to get such award recognised and enforced in India as soon as
possible.
2. Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta3
In this case, a single judge bench of the Supreme Court was faced with the question of
misconduct on the part of the arbitrator for not giving proper opportunity to the party for
presenting its case. While deciding on the matter the court held that keeping aside the factual
reasons rendering the party to present its case, a party has no absolute right to insist on his
convenience being consulted in every respect. The matter is within the discretion of the
arbitrator and the Court will intervene only in the event of positive abuse. 4 If a party, after

2
Vijay Karia v. PrsymianCavi E Sistemi SRL 2020 (3) SCALE 494.
3
Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta (2003) 7 SCC 492
4
Montrose Canned Foods Ltd. [(1965) 1 Lloyd's Rep 597]
 being given proper notice, chooses not to appear,then the proceedings may properly continue
in his absence.5

Foreign Cases
3. Minmetal Germany GmbH v. Ferco Steel Ltd.6

This is a landmark judgement in the field of arbitration delivered by the High Court of
England and Wales. Court in this case dealt with the enforceability of a foreign award under
the England’s Arbitration Act and also the New York convention. The matter before the
court concerned inability of one party to present its case before the arbitrator based on which
it sought bar on the enforcement of such award. While deciding the issue the court held that
each party complaining violation of natural justice will have to prove the misconduct of the
Arbitration Tribunal in denial of justice to them. The Appellant must show that he was
otherwise unable to present his case which would mean that the matters were outside his
control and not because of his own failure to take advantage of an opportunity duly accorded
to him.
This case came to be recognised for laying down a test to decide whether the party claiming
non-enforceability has been given adequate opportunity to present his case. Court stated that
the test of matters outside one's control, must be followed. This means that the award would
only become unenforceable on the request of one party if he shows that he was not able to
present his case due to the functioning of factors that were outside its reasonable control.
4. JorfLasfar Energy Co. v. AMCI Export Corporation7
Judgment in this case was delivered by the US District Court for the state of Pennsylvania.
Court in this case relied on the judgement delivered in Minmetal’s case and also went onto
apply the test laid down in the latter. The court stated that if a party fails to obey procedural
orders given by the arbitrator, it must suffer the consequences. If evidence is excluded
because it is not submitted in accordance with a procedural order, a party cannot
purposefully ignore the procedural directives of the decision-making body and then
successfully claim that the procedures were unfair or violative of due process.
5
British Oil and Cake Mills Ltd. v. Horace Battin& Co. Ltd. [(1922) 13 LI L Rep 443]
6
Minmetal Germany GmbH v. Ferco Steel Ltd. (1999) 1 All ER (Comm) 315
7
JorfLasfar Energy Co. v. AMCI Export Corporation 2008 WL 1228930
5. DongwooMann+Hummel Co. Ltd. v. Mann+Hummel GmbH8
This is a Singapore High Court judgement delivered on similar grounds as the AMCI
judgement. In this case the court held that a deliberate refusal to comply with a discovery
order is not per se a contravention of public policy because the adversarial procedure in
arbitration admits of the possible sanction of an adverse inference being drawn against the
party that does not produce the document in question in compliance with an order. The
tribunal will of course consider all the relevant facts and circumstances, and the submissions
by the parties before the tribunal decides whether or not to draw an adverse inference for the
non-production.
6. Consorcio Rive v. Briggs of Cancun9
In this case the U.S. District Court of Louisiana was faced with an issue where one of the
parties that refused to attend the arbitral proceedings was challenging the enforcement of
award arising from such proceedings, on the grounds of natural justices. In conclusion the
court held that the due process guarantee incorporated in Article V(1)(b) of the Convention
requires that an arbitrator must provide a fundamentally fair hearing. A fundamentally fair
hearing is one that meets the minimal requirements of fairness adequate notice, a hearing on
the evidence, and an impartial decision by the arbitrator. Parties that have chosen to remedy
their disputes through arbitration rather than litigation should not expect the same
procedures they would find in the judicial arena. Essentially, in exchange for the
convenience and other benefits obtained through arbitration, parties lose the right to seek
redress from the court for all but the most exceptional errors at arbitration.10
The general approach to enforcement of an award should be pro-enforcement. The 1958
Convention's basic thrust was to liberalize procedures for enforcing foreign arbitral award, it
clearly shifted the burden of proof to the party defending against enforcement and limited
his defences to seven set forth in Article V. Consistent with the federal policy of
encouraging arbitration and enforcing arbitration awards, the defence that a party was

8
DongwooMann+Hummel Co. Ltd. v. Mann+Hummel GmbH (2008) SGHC 275
9
Consorcio Rive v. Briggs of Cancun 134 F. Supp 2d 789
10
Dean v. Sullivan, 118 F. 3d 1170, 1173 (7th Cir. 1997).
 "unable to present its case" raised pursuant to Article V(1) (b) of the Convention is narrowly
construed.11
7. Nanjing Cereals v. Luckmate Commodities XXI.12
This judgement was delivered by the Supreme Court of Hong Kong, which was faced with
similar factual scenario as in the present case. Court while answering to the submissions
made by the Respondent stated that it is not accepted that the Defendant had no opportunity
to present its case. On the contrary, the Defendant made full use of the ample opportunity
given and only complained after the proceedings had finally been closed, having foregone
the opportunity of asking for an extension of those proceedings. All proceedings must have a
finite end. this is a classic case where a court should exercise its discretion to refuse to set
aside an award, due to the failure of the Defendants to prosecute their own case properly by
submitting their own evidence to the Tribunal.

11
Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. SocieteGenerale de L'Industrie du Papier, 508 F. 2d 969, 975 (2d
Cir.1974).
12
Nanjing Cereals v. Luckmate Commodities XXI.Y.B. Com. Arb. 542 (1996)
 JUDGEMENT IN PERSONAM

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after considering the point of contentions presented before
it by both the parties and imposing full reliance on the judicial precedents presented before it,
dismissed the appeal filed by the Respondent. Further it directed that the foreign award passed in
favour of the Appellant should be enforced.

The court further held that the judgement passed by Justice Chatterjee, member of the division
bench of the Supreme Court that heard the matter of the present parties, cannot be sustained.
Judgement passed by Justice Chatterjee in favour of the Respondent, denying enforcement of
foreign arbitral award on the ground that proper opportunity was not given to the Respondent to
present his case, has no ground to stand on.
 JUDGEMENT IN REM

Three Judge Bench in the present case stated that courts intervention in enforcement of foreign
arbitral award should be minimal and sporadic. A foreign arbitrator should not be question based
on factual grounds that he has looked into during the proceedings. Based on the authorities cited
before the court, the arbitrator is in control of the arbitral proceedings and procedural orders
which give time limits must be strictly adhered to.
 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

In the present case, judgement is delivered by Justice Rohington Fali Nariman. In a learned
opinion, Justice Nariman revisits theVijay Karia v. PrsymianCavi E Sistemi SRL as the defining
law on the subject. True to his style, the judgment is a progressive one, and justified by a
rigorous reading of precedents and statutory norms. It is rare to see a sound legal judgment,
which does not rely upon anecdotal evidence and platitudes. Given the workload on Supreme
Court judges, the rarity is understandable, yet these rare judgments are commendable. The
judgment in the present case can be considered as yet another significant step which takes us
closer to justice and equity. It does not lay down something very innovative, but interprets and
uses the conditions laid down in various cases in a pragmatic manner- different from the way in
which it has been interpreted by the courts so far. It interprets the applicability and conditions
required for enforcing an award under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Court in the present case was faced with the question of applicability of section 48 of the Act in
case where the arbitral award has been delivered as a result of two-tier arbitration clause. The
dispute in the present case is a long drawn one that has went through two stages of arbitration,
High Court and also has been considered by the Supreme Court at three instances. The main
point of contention that arose before the court related to the violation of principles of natural
justice that can also be said to be in violation of public policy in India. Respondent contented that
he did not receive the proper opportunity to present its case before the foreign arbitrator.
Supreme court after holding the two-tier arbitration clause valid under the contract laws of India,
went on to look into the very purpose for which parties choose arbitration over litigation.

Court in the present case relied on various domestic and foreign cases dealing with enforceability
of foreign arbitral award. Reliance given by the judges on these cases and the interpretation
drawn, are the ones that must be applauded. Judges went into the very source that makes
enforceability of foreign awards so important. In this regard, the court read and analysed the
provisions of the New York Convention, which they opined, must be respected and followed in
majority of cases as India is a signatory to the said convention. Under the convention, one of the
primary grounds on which the enforcement of a foreign award could be refused, is if the party to
the arbitration is not given proper opportunity to present its case. A parallel to this provision was
drawn by the court by relying on the judgements dealing with the Arbitration Act of United
Kingdom that was also drafted on the similar lines as the convention.

Concurring with the view held by foreign courts of various jurisdictions in numerous cases
dealing with the same matter, the Supreme Court held that the defence or ground of natural
justice or public policy must be strictly given a narrow interpretation. This means that the party
claiming violation of natural justice must prove a prima facie case that the factors that stopped
him from presenting his part of the case were out of his reasonable control.

On these grounds the court was of the opinion that a party must not be allowed to take advantage
of his own wrong. Reading some logic into this point, the court stated that refusal or indifference
by a party to the arbitration to present his case cannot be remedied under violation of natural
justice. Court went onto hold a firm view that a foreign arbitral award must be enforced in all the
cases except in those sporadic cases in which intervention of the court is necessary to protect the
very notions of justice. This was supported by the point that a party must be given only one
opportunity to hinder the award rendered by an institution so as to let the award holder enjoy the
fruit arising out of justice.

As a person who has followed the matter across benches, author of this paper is of the opinion
that the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in this case, has decided and rendered the much-
needed end to the dispute that has gone to various forums depriving the rightful beneficiary of
the award, his part of the contract. Author believes that the court was right in upholding the very
reason for which the arbitration is promoted over litigation i.e. speedy resolution. Court in this
case by dismissing the appeal filed by the Respondent upheld the position that the provision of
the Act must not be misused to hamper speedy process that is arbitration. It was also applaudable
on the part of the court to hold that an award once passed by the arbitrators must only be
interfered by the courts sporadically. As in an arbitration proceeding the time limit fixed are the
once that are decided on the discretion of the arbitrators and the parties cannot act against these
orders and later on claim misconduct on the part of the arbitrator thereby challenging the validity
of the whole process.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Statutes and Conventions

1. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

2. Arbitration Act, 1996

3. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958
Cases
1. Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. and Anr. [2002] 2 SCR 411

2. Vijay Karia v. PrsymianCavi E Sistemi SRL 2020 (3) SCALE 494.

3. Minmetal Germany GmbH v. Ferco Steel Ltd. (1999) 1 All ER (Comm) 315
4. JorfLasfar Energy Co. v. AMCI Export Corporation 2008 WL 1228930
5. DongwooMann+Hummel Co. Ltd. v. Mann+Hummel GmbH (2008) SGHC 275
6. Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta (2003) 7 SCC 492
7. Montrose Canned Foods Ltd. [(1965) 1 Lloyd's Rep 597]
8. British Oil and Cake Mills Ltd. v. Horace Battin& Co. Ltd. [(1922) 13 LI L Rep 443]
9. Consorcio Rive v. Briggs of Cancun 134 F. Supp 2d 789
10. Dean v. Sullivan, 118 F. 3d 1170, 1173 (7th Cir. 1997).
11. Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. SocieteGenerale de L'Industrie du Papier, 508 F. 2d
969, 975 (2d Cir.1974).
12. Nanjing Cereals v. Luckmate Commodities XXI. Y.B. Com. Arb. 542 (1996)

Books
1. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration 6th Edn

2. Merkin and Flannery on the Arbitration Act, 1996

3. P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration 6th Edn

The book provides knowledge to understand the background and changes that happened in the
international arbitration. The book also gives a slight peak on the various nations laws that
governs the arbitration process in them. The book helped me to understand the dispute about the
arbitral award given in another country .

2. Merkin and Flannery on the Arbitration Act, 1996

The book gives detailed explanation on the each and every section of the Arbitration act 1996. It
contains a commentary on every section with separate issues and several notes for a concept. The
book helped me to understand the Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The
book also gave various authorities to support the arguments mentioned in the project.